Here They Come!

ground swat wrote: So how many attended tonight?

Journal story says 20 showed, all over the age of 45. No young parents interested in the buildings their kids will be attending in the future? No young parents interested in whether their neighborhood school will be around in years to come? Thought some of these young parents were "gung-ho" on education.
Hmm.

Before any talk of building a new high school (or any new school for that matter), I would want to see the following from the committee:

1. A list of all the facility issues with each school.

2. A list of how these issues were resolved- ie- was the problem fixed using internal employees or was it sub-contracted out at a potentially higher cost?

3. If subcontracted out, how many bids were asked for and was the lowest QUALIFIED bidder selected to do the repair. Was the repair checked by a school official to judge whether it was done properly? If not, was the contractor called back to do it right?

4. A list of the cost of each repair, be it internally resolved or externally resolved.

5. The budget for each school to allow for repairs and how the budget for each school was configured.

6. A list of whether each school over spent or underspent their portion of the budget.

7. If overspent, where did the money come from to make up the difference. If underspent, was the money transferred to another school that had more repair issues.

8. A list of recurring problems with each building. A plan to solve those recurring problems if possible.

9. A list of noted shoddy repair from both internal repairs done and extenal. How were they resolved.

10. A list of sub-contractors used, but are now blacklisted due to poor work on repairs and the method in place to assure that these sub-contractors will never be used again.

11. A document for each school that describes in detail, the preventative maintenance program that is used to lessen the possibility of more severe problems. IE- what is the frequency that the heating/cooling systems are checked and serviced. Frequency of electrical system checks. Frequency of plumbing checks. How often is the roof evaluated at each school to eliminate large repairs and repair problems when they are still able to be tackled without a major overhaul of the roof. Have all of these been evaluated to assure that they are the correct frequency in overseeing the buildings?

12. How about the parking lots.....paving at each school ok? Are the driveways also maintained, patching the holes that occur rather than to wait until the parking lots and driveways look like the Middletown streets? How often is this looked at?

13. Can they build a school WITHOUT a flat roof? Seems that all have flat roofs which are more prone to leaking and have no runoff. Puddling on flat roofs causes faster deterioration, doesn't it? Shingles on roofs. How often are they checked for damage or cracking? Are they replaced as soon as they are found? All preventative maintenance.

14. Brick and mortar......how often is this checked on each building? Is the mortar caulked when missing to prevent water seepage or is it ignored?

And finally.....Middletown High School was built in 1970. It is 42 years old. There are homes in Middletown much older than that. They are repaired and maintained for the most part. (with the exception of the folks who cannot afford to repair them and they end up looking like crap as they fall apart.) They will last if kept up. Don't understand why the talk of a potential new high school when the current one is only 42 years old. Vail (the old high school to me) was built in what, the 1920's? It has stood for many years with an occasional new roof, new windows and some paint slapped on the walls once in a while. Ask your committee members, Mr, Shaffer, if they have a time limit on their home. What is the criteria for tearing down and replacing their own home. How long do they wait to make repairs to a leaking roof on their own home? We all know the answers because most of us homeowners wouldn't let it get to the point where a repair would become a major factor. We also know that we homeowners have never thought about tearing down our own homes and rebuilding because that would involve our own money. It is easier to ask the public for more money to pay for what we would never do privately, isn't it?

Vet: I'm sorry that you couldn't attend last night's meeting. I think that some of your questions would have been answered. Additionally, you would have had the opportunity to ask these questions directly. 19 "voting" members were present. By "voting" I mean that each had a hand-held device that recorded their response to general questions asked by the moderator from Fanning Howey. Although most of your questions---especially about preventive maintenance---can be answered through the district's computerized work request system, is it really worth the effort to have another stack of papers to wade through to prove it? After all the documentation is scrutinized, will it actually be worth the extensive effort to go through each work request? Specific issues bubble to the top and are dealt with. This is standard procedure in facilities' management. Having been in the Business Office for 9 months, I can tell you that none of the new buildings have any on-going concerns in regard to recurring maintenance issues. The HS had the auditorium roof replaced this summer, and Manchester needs a new roof. Vail/MMS has its infrastructure problems like any 90 year old building would. I feel that your comparison of the life expectancy of educational is flawed. These buildings should be compared to commercial, industrial and other educational buildings. These (HS & MMS) have several thousand students using the facilities every day. Toilets get flushed and broken, doors get constant use (opening, closing, slammed shut), furniture is broken through use, things wear out. Residential properties are not subjected to the heavy use that educational facilities are. Further, as was stated many times at the meeting, no preconceptions have been made regarding which, if any, buildings will be repurposed or replaced. This is the purpose of the committee. It has not been suggested that our "new" 42 year old HS should be demolished. It has been suggested to modify it to a middle school. I feel that the true elephant-in-the-room is the "old HS" (Vail/MMS). Yes, it can be renovated, similar to Hughes HS in Cincinnati---at greater cost than replacing it. However, the rooms would not be the size of the OSFC's (Ohio School Facilities' Commission) standards. One point of clarification: the headlines indicated that the "High School" project is estimated at $80M. This is inaccurate. The HS/Middle School/Manchester resolution---the remaining Phase II projects---have $80M remaining. Half of this amount is due from the state. After last night's meeting, it appears that we are on a track of proper evaluation for the future of the district. Thank you for your post. I know that my response will bring more questions. Again: DISCLAIMER: these are my beliefs and do not necessarily reflect those of the district or committee. Rick

Acclaro: I will respond to several things that are easy to relate: we reviewed the enrollment figures briefly last night: bear with me, since, without a chart, it's can get confusing. I jotted down these figures from the meeting last night: in 2003 the PROJECTED enrollment for next school year (2012-13) was to be 7,687; this was revised in 2008 to be (2012-13) next year 5,996; the ACTUAL for 2010-11 school year was 6,784; in October, 2011 (current school year) 6,484 (ACTUAL). Classroom size, if I remember correctly, varies from 950 sq. ft to 1,050 sq. ft., depending on several factors, including grade level, use (science lab, etc.). Most of the classrooms that I have had experience with (Oak Hills, Princeton, Cincinnati Public---built from 1930's through 90's (not many were built after the 1980's, unless they were built for growth) were pretty standard at 25' x 30' (removing about 1' x 30' for the outside wall univent and cabinets/book shelves---i.e., not useable for actual classroom use. Vail/MMS is pretty consistent at the 750 sq. ft. of classroom space (25' x 30') or a little less. This OSFC minimum sq. ft. requirement is for new construction. It does not mean that a totally remodeled building like Vail must adhere to that. As I stated in a previous blog, Hughes HS near UC was "totally" remodeled, as is Rothenberg in Over-the-Rhine being renovated now. Middletown Middle School COULD be a candidate for restoration---anything is possible, as the saying goes. However, there must be a comparison made between a renovation and a demo/rebuild. The state has a 2/3 guideline: "New construction must conform to the Ohio School Design Manual (OSDM)standards to qualify for OSFC funding participation; facilities must have a minimum enrollment of 350; 2/3 rule: if cost of RENOVATION exceeds 2/3 of the cost of NEW CONSTRUCTION then the OSFC RECOMMENDS a new facility."   It does not require demolition. However strong commitment to renovation is suggested, and some renovation costs must be paid 100% by the district. Example: There was strong opposition in Glendale to use the elementary for district offices or replaced with a new facility. It was even suggested that it be given to the Village. Vocal residents wanted it to continue as a neighborhood school EVEN THOUGH FEW GLENDALE STUDENTS WENT THERE---most of the Glendale residents sent their kids to private school. As a result, Princeton spent about $4M to put in a new HVAC system, bring it up to firecode, install a bus drop-off in front, new technology, and minor cosmetics. I don't know for sure, but I believe the $4M was paid by the district, with no OSFC involvement. More later.   Whew!   Rick

Intreresting

Rick,

Pacman: The last round of facilities' meetings that we had---about 6 months or so---reviewed all of the three options with dollar amounts. I believe that you are correct, that the cost to renovate the existing HS was about the same as building a new one. Rick

Well, since I was also in attendance at Thursday evening’s meeting, I guess it is time for me to weigh in with my thoughts and impressions.

First, I must say that I wish this meeting would’ve been taped, so that I could review the proceedings and be 100% accurate.  It was not (at least not to my knowledge), so let me preface my remarks by saying that I will try to be as accurate as possible, but I am relying on memory, notes, and especially impressions.

At the start of the meeting, everyone in attendance introduced themselves.  Then representatives from Fanning and Howey, Inc. (F/H) gave a brief presentation before asking a series of multiple choice questions of the group.  The group responded via 19 individual, anonymous radio frequency transmitters (resembling very small remote control units).  When all 19 responses were registered, the percentage choosing each of the possible answers was shown on the screen along with the question.

I found some apparent discrepancies between the verbal responses and the anonymous answers.  For example, during introductions, it was my distinct impression that nearly everyone in the room, save four or five people, worked for the school district, volunteered with the school district, had retired from the school district, or was employed by a contractor of the school district.  Yet, the anonymous replies to the question “Are you an employee of the school district?” indicated that less than half were.  This may have been technically true, but it seems to me that, as a poll question, that answer was somewhat misleading and, standing alone, could indicate much less of a bias toward a “school district position” than there might actually have been.  Along these same lines, only one person in the room had a child in the school system at present.  Yet, in response to one of the questions, only a couple of us had not been “in a district classroom” in the last few months.  Now, since there has not been a meeting of this committee for at least six months, since only one person in the room currently had a child in school, and fewer than half were “employees of the district”, why had everyone (save a couple of us) been in a district classroom very recently???   I wish I had the exact figures.

The “2003 Master Plan” was mentioned several times during the evening.  Master Plan “options” were mentioned, as was “Master Plan Phase Two”.  I felt as if I was the only one in the room unfamiliar with this “master plan” and asked if it was available on-line.  Mr. Thompson promised to email a copy to me.  (He has done so.  I received it Friday, but have not yet looked at it.  To my knowledge, I am the only one that asked for it.)

Towards the end of the meeting, F/H showed a series of slides consisting of an aerial view of Middletown with the existing school buildings shown, as well as several possible options for “Phase Two”.  One of the options was to leave all schools where they are right now, while performing any necessary repairs/modernizations required to the high school and middle school buildings.  F/H indicated that there may be new options arising as a result of these meetings.

Many times during the evening I got the impression or feeling that the “decision” had already been made, and that the real purpose of this committee was going to be to “sell” that decision to taxpayers.  (I truly hope that I am wrong about this.)  That feeling or impression was reinforced towards the end of the meeting, when we were divided into three smaller groups to compile lists of “What do YOU need to know.”  In our group, some of the members (retired teachers, I believe) were reluctant to list my single question/request.  In fact, they seemed a little “put out” that I dared to bother them with such a request.  What was it???  I asked to see “the inspection reports for the high school buildings, the Vail buildings, and the Verity buildings”.  They said that “the State will make the inspections after we make our decision”.  I asked them how we can possibly make a rational decision if the facilities have not been inspected so that we can know what has to be done to themto bring them up to snuff.  They looked at me like I was crazy.  I returned a similar expression.  I finally shrugged and said if they won’t put it on our list, I would ask someone else to put it on their list.  They relented, but listed it on a separate sheet, even though there was plenty of room on the first sheet.

Oh…one other thing:  earlier in the meeting, when F/H was mentioning the abandoning or possible demolition of Vail Middle School as an option, I asked F/H if they were familiar with Middletown’s City Ordinance 1210.  They said that they were not, and asked what it pertained to.  I said that it pertained to historic structures and puts severe limitations on what may, or may not, be done to such structures, including demolition or remodeling.  Could our local history buffs overzealousness for all things historic stand in the way of adequate school buildings???  I doubt it.  If they will “certify” junk auto hoods as “appropriate” for siding on a building in our “Historic Downtown Middletown”, what’s not to be found “certifiable”???  Still, if we follow the letter of the law, as our City Law Director is sworn to do…

Interesting article about Monroe schools, how things can change.

sounds so typical, Mike

Question;

Pacman:

According to what Fanning & Howe told us last Thursday evening:

·       2003 enrollment projection predicted 7,637 students in 2012-2013.

·       2008 enrollment projection predicted 5,996 students in 2012-2013.

·       Actual 2010-2011 enrollment was 6,784.

·       Actual October 2011 enrollment was 6,484.

I am confused by one of your other points:  Will “incidents of trouble” or “cell phones” somehow be less disruptive to the educational process in new buildings?

I can’t be certain, but again, I just don’t see this as being about either a reward or punishment for what goes on inside the buildings.  It should be about whether or not the existing buildings can serve the intended purposes.  If not, would it be more economical to bring them up to snuff, or replace them???

I may be a simple man, but is it really any more complicated than that???

Gentlemen
    I would strongly advise you watch the last Council Meeting and read this weeks City Council Workbook because it clearly states that the new Butler County CIC Landbank will be funded by delinquent property taxes therefore fewer dollars will go to the school system. Doug Adkins and City Council are in favor of this plan and I believe it will pass on Tuesday. As I have said before I have great concern over the power of CIC’s.
    So I will suggest a new plan to the School Board. Since the “New Downtown” will be the Mecca of Education and Mr. Adkins is going to level the majority of the houses in the 2^nd Ward anyway between Garfield St and Verity Parkway…or we have the other area of demo from Sutphin to University Blvd. that the new school be built in one of these neighborhoods as part of the Revitalization Plan. 
    This will get rid of many section 8 housing units, remove a high crime area and revitalize your downtown area all in the same plan.

 

Mr. Schaeffer,

I read the comment about a new auditorium/theater would have to be approved separate from the new school. If that is correct; may I propose a "radical" solution.

MMF currently have the contract to purchase the Sorg Opera House. Why not have MMF, the school board and the city renovate the Opera House, open a School for the Creative and Performing Arts, and concentrate building a top quality gymnasium in a new facility.

This would solve more than a few problems. The cost of renovating the Opera House to be used by the School District would open up the prospect of grant money to cover the cost of renovating. If I've read all the posts correctly (doubtful), that renovation cost would go towards the money the school district would count to reach the $40m "kickback" on capital improvements. It would leave the School Board the option of needing to design only an athletic facility and not an auditorium. It saves an historic, downtown building and provides for a unique education experience for Middletown students. It makes the city and the school district look like they are actually working together.

I'm sure there are some holes in this that I haven't thought of, considering that I just thought of it. It would seem a solution to a number of problems and provides for an opportunity to solve those problems with one decision. Sounds too simple.